Cool scenario. Say , ever played Empire ? At first I thought this was like it , but actually seeing the scenario its not too bad. But just saying , if you like those declare war in chat types of games, Empire is your thing.

I think that USA is completely underpowered. They have a weak bonus, and not many armies to defend it, especeially Hawai that is bordering SA, Japan and Oceania. Since USA is the world leader, i don't understand how this power can be so weak, especially in front of canada for example, that has many mates to help him

Which version are you playing in?

Thanks for the suggestion. Once I know which version you are playing I will be able to have a clearer idea of what you are saying and will then take another look. For the moment, I have some comments off the top of my head....

I think that USA is completely underpowered.They have a weak bonus, and not many armies to defend it, especeially Hawai that is bordering SA, Japan and Oceania.

The bonus isn't underpowered, it has one of the biggest bonuses.

Yes, Hawaii has a border with South America and Japan, but it has enough starting armies to defend an attack from either of them (just as they have enough to defend against an attack from the USA). In fact, I don't recall the Oceania border having anywhere near enough armies to defend or attack because nobody starts with that bonus. Hawaii can't have more starting armies because it would make it too easy to attack Japan or South America - it works both ways.

All borders can be protected against an attack, but like in any game, if the surrounding players ALL decide to attack you then you are going to be in trouble. If you can't stop them all attacking you at the same time then you will probably lose - this goes for any team and is why diplomacy is advised.

Since USA is the world leader, i don't understand how this power can be so weak...

The USA is the world leader currently, but not in this game where it is around at the same time as past empires. I don't think there is a clear world leader in this game.

...especially in front of canada for example, that has many mates to help him

It's not Canada as a nation, it's the British Empire, which was much larger and more powerful. This is why it has more team mates, however, they also need to defend all over the world, so it's not like they can send all armies to the USA border. Perhaps you've just been a bit unlucky that they aren't under pressure elsewhere. If this is the case then don't worry, they will probably get distracted somewhere else pretty soon.

If u accept some sugestion.
How about u put 1 extra armies per 5 territories
that way even territories that shared by diferrent teams can gain some troops and make some people retreat because diplomacy more hard

Hi Kantos,

Yes, it's an interesting idea. It might be a bit tough though because some slots will start with a lot more initial territories than others, so they will have a massive advantage. It could be possible if I reduced their bonuses though. I'll need to think about it a bit more...

Version 3.2 is now available.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TemplateID=266784


Changes:

1. A few very small changes to which team mate controls some territories (Britain and France) and a couple of small changes to initial starting armies in some territories

2. Rules have been introduced


Enjoy!

Then the time of the game should be precised, because since 1900, USA is going to be the first world leader (industrially) and after 1914 the first one militarily too

stanfield this game is a mashup of several empires from all ages for instances vikings and americans are in the same world so an exact time is not possible.

hi,

Fonzy - great job with the scenario, it works really well, im playing already a few of them=)

Let me just give you my 2 impressions:

1) imo luck should be definitely 16 or 0%. 75% makes the game often totally unpredictable and it favours noobs.

2) the scenario without rules works better. When people have to declare war, then everyone fears to be the first one and there is very little interaction between players.

Without this rule, the game is always very vivid and interesting from the very beginning.

Hi Luke,

Like your suggestion about the luck setting, I will probably change that in the next version.

It was my initial thinking to have no rules but It seemed that a lot of people were requesting them in chat so I'd though I'd try it out in the last version. I might change this back again in the next version so I'm keen to get everyone's ideas on this. If anyone makes a post then please state which you prefer.

I've been holding back on the next version because I didn't want to keep small changes and then keep making new versions every couple of days. It's already in the works, but I probably won't host it until I feel I've got as many changes done to make it worth it.


Just a quick note to Marion, yes Ironheart is right, it would be impossible to have some of these teams in the same game if it was stuck to a precise era of time. Also there are a couple of very small inconsistencies with history, for example, the British having Iceland. This was done purely for holding that particular bonus. The only way I would be able to change that would be if I could change where the bonuses are on the map and unfortunately I can't do that without making an entirely new map just for the purpose of this scenario. You never know, I might try it one day if I have the time....

Another thing about the rules: I'm in one playing as the british in india with random team-mates (never a good sign) and one of them attacked without a declaration so, per the current rules I went rogue with them, that may be an issue, especially with open seats. Not sure what to be done, or if you intended it this way, just my thoughts .

Personally I would like to state that I find there to be a big disbalance between the individual parties.
While normally I always love roleplaying games and then especially to roleplay the smaller nations this is made almost impossible by the fact that most people do not seem to be playing with a long term vision.
In the most ideal situation players would form longer lasting alliances but in reality it all boils down to various larger nations forming alliances with each other to take out a singular small nation.

Out of the 6 games I've played so far at least various people get booted out of the game and most strong nations have formed alliances with each other. The smaller nations (especially those in Africa) have all been wiped out.

Where it all boils down to right now is trying to find the game hosted as quickly as possible to try to get one of the top nations or you already know the game is not going to be fun for you. In my opinion that's a missed opportunity.

Yeah,i agree with aranka for example in one game i played as persia and russia just unleashed hell on me,broke my bonuses to his border then he had 3x more income than me.

My problem is that the British Empire is grossly overpowered, and that the bonuses are hugely artificial. I played as the United States, and the British Empire kept propping up Canada, so I could never take it. Furthermore, when they took New York, I lost 30 troops per turn! It was like: Oh they took New York YOU NO LONGER HAVE ANY ARMY.

Then I played as the Brits (Africa, then Canada) and in one, we swept the board. Admittedly, Russia was booted, but that actually was a factor against us. The problem with the British is that any decent team simply allies with a few of their neighbors, absorbs the rest, then repeats. That's what screws everyone else over. The British, as a team, ARE widely scattered, but since everyone has airlifts, it doesn't matter.

I think a better way to handle large countries is boost individual bonuses some instead of jacking city or superbonuses up to insane levels. Also, Brazil is usually powerless to stop the Spanish Empire, and Mexico folds like a house of cards when the United States attacks.

As for the British, I'd suggest taking them out of India, giving them Indochina, and merging Canada and Oceania, then making India independent. Tone down Canada's power a bit and that should work out fine.

@Xararex Am in a game in which the British were the among first to be destroyed.

i have only been in two games out of about 15 where the british empire did well. One of them is because british africa won the battle against french africa and now has 130 units per turn and cananda took south america after both were booted. In the other one canada has captured the entire usa and they are doing ok

back to point, these games where the british empire survived were both only because of one of them winning the normal fights, if anything the british empire is underpowered

I preferred not declaring war

Hi Fonzy,


These games are really quite marvelous in my opinion, great job! First off, are you planning to make any more? And more importantly you might want to reconsider the boot times, I know not many people want to wait more than three days, but it seems like too many of the games get ruined by booting major players. In real time booting makes sense but, in multi days it just seems unnecessary and it upsets the balances of power as a result of the ensuing territory grabbing.

Regardless, it is a great scenario! I hope you make more!